Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

FiltersCA

10,000+ results

4.40s

  • Bakos v. Roach

    California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 2025

    Defendants cross-appeal, challenging the trial court’s conclusion that they lack qualified immunity. … entitlement to qualified immunity.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Galen v. County of Los Angeles

    322 F. Supp. 2d 1045 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 9, 2004

    established at the time the search took place, the officers were entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … “[A] plaintiff can only survive summary judgment on a defense claim of qualified immunity if the plaintiff can both establish a substantial showing of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard and establish that, without

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Figueroa v. Gates

    207 F. Supp. 2d 1085 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 11, 2002

    basis of qualified immunity. … On the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, “whether the right was clearly established,” Katz, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , the Court asks whether “ ‘the contours of the right [were] sufficiently clear that

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society

    45 Cal. App. 4th 163 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 1996

    would violate a clearly established constitutional *178 or statutory right. … Further, an officer’s unreasonable ignorance that he has violated a clearly established right does not save his claim of qualified immunity. (Gilker v. Baker (9th Cir. 1978) 576 F.2d 245, 247 ; Coleman v.

    Cited 17 timesPublished
  • Barnes v. County of Placer

    654 F. Supp. 2d 1066 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 30, 2009

    Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is a defense to lawsuits against governmental officials arising out of the performance of their duties. … without first obtaining a warrant and keep them in custody until the Placer County Juvenile Court ordered their release did not violate clearly established law.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • PTI, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc.

    100 F. Supp. 2d 1179 · District Court, C.D. California · May 25, 2000

    Under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, the private defendants are clearly immune for their activities involved with the negotiation, execution, and attempts to implement the MSA, the Qualifying Statute, and the Model Act. … Moreover, no amount of colorful pleading can obscure the fact that plaintiffs’ challenge is, in fact, to the MSA, the Qualifying Statute and the Model Act, all of which are clearly immunized, as are the actions incidental

    Cited 22 timesPublished
  • Weaver v. State of California

    63 Cal. App. 4th 188 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 1998

    Defendants also asserted immunity under the qualified immunity doctrine, alleging that they are shielded from liability unless their actions violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … was reasonable and that the qualified immunity doctrine applied.”

    Cited 17 timesPublished
  • Ortiz v. Alvarez

    341 F. Supp. 3d 1087 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 21, 2018

    Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Jeffers v. … In evaluating a qualified immunity defense, the court first considers: (1) whether the defendant's conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) whether the right at issue was "clearly established."

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Turner v. Martire

    99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 587 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 14, 2000

    are immune unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Scope of authority In addition to establishing that they qualify as tribal officials for immunity purposes, defendants must satisfy the second requirement for tribal official immunity, i.e., that the official must have acted

    Cited 12 timesPublished
  • Lopez v. Youngblood

    609 F. Supp. 2d 1125 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 31, 2009

    Re: Court Returnees, Qualified Immunity and Eleventh Amendment Immunity 16). … Re: Court Returnees, Qualified Immunity and Eleventh Amendment Immunity 20-21).

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Johnson v. Bay Area Rapid Transit

    790 F. Supp. 2d 1034 · District Court, N.D. California · May 10, 2011

    The court, however, granted qualified immunity to MacPherson, stating that as of 2005, it was not clearly established that such use was unconstitutional. Id. at 833 . … Nor is Gee entitled to qualified immunity. The law as to extended detentions absent the indicia of probable cause was clearly established at the time of the incident.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Hansen v. California Department of Corrections

    920 F. Supp. 1480 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 25, 1996

    If, rationally, what the state of the law was is a close question, the law cannot be deemed “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity. … California Statutory Immunity California has no qualified immunity law similar to federal qualified immunity.

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Chew v. Gates

    744 F. Supp. 952 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 31, 1990

    Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), grants qualified immunity to government officials performing discretionary functions as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The question of whether a government official has qualified immunity for an action turns on the “ ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • People v. Onesra Enterprises, Inc.

    7 Cal. App. Supp. 5th 7 · Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California · Dec 19, 2016

    Immunity—L.A. Mun. Code Section 45.19.6.3, Subdivision E In regard to L.A. Mun. Code section 45.19.6.2, the trial court determined defendants did not qualify for immunity under L.A. Mun. … Thus, the use of the disjunctive clearly expresses that the failure to obtain registration either in 2011 or 2012 will suffice to disqualify the defendant from immunity.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Kirby v. County of Fresno

    242 Cal. App. 4th 940 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 1, 2015

    County contends that the CUA and the MMP provide a limited immunity from prosecution under state statutes, but provide no immunity from prosecution pursuant to a local law such as County’s. … The provision clearly states that such possession must be “consistent with this article”—that is, consistent with the MMP.

    Cited 19 timesPublished
  • (PC) Hardney v. Warren

    District Court, E.D. California · Dec 5, 2022

    Qualified Immunity 2 Alternatively, Kumeh lays claim to qualified immunity. … See Moonin, 868 F.3d 13 at 873-74 (denying qualified immunity because controlling Ninth Circuit authority established the 14 applicable general rules and cases from three other circuit courts and several district courts

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Hepting v. AT & T Corp.

    439 F. Supp. 2d 974 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 20, 2006

    Qualified immunity shields state actors from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … are not clearly established and deny them qualified immunity when they violate statutory rights that similarly are not clearly established.”); accord Tapley, 211 F.3d at 1216.

    Cited 22 timesPublished
  • OONA R.-S. BY KATE S. v. Santa Rosa City Schools

    890 F. Supp. 1452 · District Court, N.D. California · May 2, 1995

    If the plaintiff does establish such intent, there can be no qualified immunity. … In order to defeat a qualified immunity claim at this stage in a section 1983 action, a plaintiff must sufficiently allege the deprivation of a clearly established right secured by federal statutory or constitutional law.

    Cited 17 timesPublished
  • Cunningham v. Gates

    989 F. Supp. 1256 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 15, 1997

    IMMUNITY STANDARD “Government officials who perform discretionary functions are protected from liability for civil damages as long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The threshold determination of whether the law is clearly established is a question of law for the court. [Citations.]

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Gallardo v. DiCarlo

    203 F. Supp. 2d 1160 · District Court, C.D. California · May 13, 2002

    Qualified Immunity DiCarlo asserts that she is entitled to dismissal of the FAC on the grounds of qualified immunity. 11 In Section 1983 claims, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damage … She is not entitled to qualified immunity based on the allegations in the FAC. D.

    Cited 19 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.